An-Najah National University 
Faculty of Graduate Studies 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Implicature in 
Simultaneous Interpretation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

By 
Thaher Mohammad Gharabah 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Supervisor 
Dr. Sufyan Abuarrah 

 
 
 

This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Linguistics 
and Translation, Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-Najah 
National University, Nablus, Palestine 

2018 





iii 
 

Dedication 

I dedicate my humble work  

To my father and my mother  

Whose love, encouragement, support and prayers of days and nights make 

me able get such honor. 

To Dr. Sufyan Abuarrah 

The great professor who I will always be indebted to.  

To my friends  

Who answer the call for help without hesitation.  

 

 

 

  



iv 
 

Acknowledgment 

First and foremost, praise is to Allah who supports me with strength 

and determination to achieve this work. 

   I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor Dr. 

Sufyan Abuarrah for his support, creative suggestions and guidance. My 

words will not be enough to express my deep appreciation for what I have 

learned during this work.  

I would also like to thank my teachers who were the example to 

follow during my study at An-Najah University.  

In addition, I would like to extend my thanks to my colleagues and 

friends who I have had the pleasure to be with during my MA study.   

 Finally, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my 

family for their great help and support.    

 

  





vi 
 

Table of Contents 

Subject Page 

Defense Committee Members ii 
Dedication iii 
Acknowledgments iv 
Declaration v 
Table of Contents  vi 
List of Abbreviations viii 
Abstract ix 

Chapter One: Introduction 1 

1.1 Background 2 
1.2 Statement of the Problem 6 
1.3 Aim of the Study 6 
1.4 Questions of the Study  7 
1.5 Significance of the Study 7 
1.6 Methodology 8 
1.7 Layout of the Study 9 

Chapter Two: Literature Review 11 

2.1 The Interdisciplinarity of SI    12 
2.2 Implicature in Translation and Interpretation 15 
2.3 Implicature in Practice  17 

Chapter Three: Theoretical Background 26 

3.1 Introducing SI 27 
3.2 Simultaneous Iinterpreters’ Challenges 30 
      3.2.1 Introduction  30 

3.2.2 Anticipation 31 
3.2.3 Time Pressure 32 
3.2.4 Stress 33 

3.3 Implicature 35 
3.4 Levinson’s Categorization of Implicature 42 

3.4.1 Q-principle 42 
3.4.1.1 Q-Scalar Implicature 43 
3.4.1.2 Q-Clausal Implicature 44 
3.4.1.3 Q-alternate Implicature 45 

3.4.2 I-principle (I for Informative) 46 
3.4.3 M- principle 48 

3.5 The Interaction Between Q-, I-, and M-principles 50 



vii 
 

Subject Page 

Chapter Four: Elements to Consider in SI of Implicature 53 

4.1 Introduction  54 
4.2 Psycholinguistic Models for SI Interpreting 54 
4.3 SI as a Communicative Process 68 

Chapter Five: Data Analysis 72 

5.1 Introduction 73 
5.2 Data Analysis 75 

Chapter Six: Conclusions and Recommendations 107 

6.1 Conclusions  108 
6.2 Recommendations 112 

References 113 

 ب الملخص

 

  



viii 
 

List of Abbreviations 
 

 

Q : Quantity 

I : Informativeness 

M : Manner 

SI : Simultaneous Interpreting 

PCI : Particularized Conversational Implicature 

GCI : Generalized Conversational Implicature 

CP : Cooperative Principle 

AIIC : International Association of Conference Interpreting 

 
   
  
   
   
  

 
 
 

  



ix 
 

Implicature in Simultaneous Interpretation 
By 

Thaher Mohammad Gharabah 
Supervisor 

Dr. Sufyan Abuarrah 

Abstract 

This research looks into implicatures interpreting in simultaneous 

interpreting. Implicated meanings constitute part of the message that 

interpreters should convey in order to communicate the original message 

adequately. The simultaneous interpreting process is challenging due to its 

oral immediate nature; moreover, implicated message poses extra challenge 

for the process due to the fact that implicatures are meant rather than said. 

This thesis aims to identify the challenges that simultaneous interpreters 

face during interpreting implicature. In addition, the research seeks to 

identify the misinterpretations of implicatures and its impact on message 

conveyance. Also, the study aims to look into the elements that can aid 

interpreters in implicature interpreting. The research follows the descriptive 

and the analytical approaches. The descriptive approach is used in the 

identification of the factors that affect interpreting implicature in 

simultaneous interpreting. The analytical part of the research includes the 

analysis of practical examples that encounter implicature in simultaneous 

interpreting by applying Levinson's Heuristics of meaning (Q, I and 

M).The most crucial challenge by the interpreter was found to be in 

grasping the implicated message itself. Interpreters can overcome such a 

challenge in two different ways; firstly the interpreter  should expand  

his/her linguistic knowledge and  the knowledge on pragmatic function of 



x 
 

the implied meanings. Considering Q-heuristic, interpreters should reflect 

the level of strength used in the source text. Such reflection will be located 

in the choice of the appropriate equivalence for the source language form. 

In the I-heuristic, which is the most challenging heuristic due to the fact 

that it is not related to certain expressions or forms, interpreters need to 

provide the exact amount of the original linguistic forms provided by the 

original speaker. This enables the audience to find a base to amplify the 

original message and reach the implicated message. The challenge in M-

heuristic  is located in the interpreters’ identification of the marked form 

and the situation it indicates. Secondly, the interpreter should hold 

sufficient background on the extralinguistic elements of the simultaneous 

interpreting process. That is, the encyclopedic knowledge of interpreters, 

their cultural background and their sociocultural background constitute part 

of the basic knowledge that interpreters should hold. The study 

recommends that the training of interpreters should focus on the linguistic 

frame; that is, the interpreter need to have training on implicatures’ 

pragmatic function, as one of the fundamental conditions of SI success.  



 

 

Chapter One 

Introduction 

1.1 Background 

1.2 Statement of the Problem 

1.3 Aim of the Study 

1.4 Questions of the Study  

1.5 Significance of the Study 

1.6 Methodology 

1.7 Layout of the Study 

  



2 
 

Chapter One 

Introduction 

1.1 Background: 

 Simultaneous interpreting (SI) before 1920 was not systematic. As 

Bermann  and Wood  (2005:51) put it “at various times interpreters have 

served as missionaries, liaison officers, military envoys, court interpreters, 

business couriers and trade negotiators”. According to Gaiba (1998), SI can 

be traced back to 1920. The new tendency to use other languages than 

French, as the source language of education and diplomacy, forced the birth 

of SI as we recognize it today, probably without the equipments that are 

available today, but the process we recognize now started at that point of 

time. The first world war stands as the main reason behind the onset of SI. 

Pöchhacker  (2016:29) states that “the Paris peace conference following 

World War I marks a fundamental turning point in the history of 

interpreting – and of diplomacy”. The exclusive usage of French language 

was interrupted by the need of other diplomatic groups, especially English 

speaking ones, to communicate in languages other than French. In 1926, 

the first patent of SI equipment was given to Gordon Finley at IBM. An 

announcement of a new age, where SI importance is realized, began.  

 According to Bermann  and Wood  (2005:52), the first school for 

interpreters was opened in Geneva in 1948.  The need for trained 

interpreters increased rapidly, beyond the need of interpreting a trial or 



3 
 

insuring the success of a meeting. Schools kept showing up, as in Moscow 

1962, to set down a new age where SI becomes a part of communication. 

With technical development, SI found its way to the world faster and in a 

more effecting manner. In other words, technology eased the SI itself by 

improving technical devices used in SI. Technology wide-spread and the 

amount of engendered interaction obliged audio- visual media to encounter 

the usage of SI as a modern method of facilitating conferences.  

According to Pöchhacker  and Shlesinger  (2002:6), “it was not until 

the mid1980s, however, the materials for spoken- language interpreting in 

community setting began to appear, independently from each other in 

different places”. SI became a profession with special courses and training. 

The massive interaction and communication force the SI to the front as one 

of the basic channels of communicating message to audience through 

media. Generally, interpreting can be defined according to Pöchhacker and 

Shlesinger  (2002:3) as “interlingual, intercultural oral or signed mediation, 

enabling communication between individuals or groups who do not share, 

or do not choose to use the same language(s)”. (see 3.1 for more details on 

SI). 

 During the develpment of SI, particularly in 1975, the English 

philosopher Herbert Paul Grice introduced the concept of implicature. 

Based upon the cooperative principle, which is a description of how people 

engaged in a conversation should act, implicature is engendered by the 

usage of Grice maxims. Grice maxims constitute rules to follow in order to 



4 
 

obtain the cooperative principle. Flouting a maxim would generate a new 

unstated meaning, known as conversational implicature. According to 

Huang (2017:27) Grice (1975) defines conversational implicature as “a set 

of non-logical inferences which contains conveyed messages which are 

meant without being part of what is said in the strict sense”. Moreover, the 

role of implicature can be observed evidently in its contrast with semantic 

meaning; while semantic meaning provides the surface meaning that 

vocabulary and syntax impart, conversational implicature goes deep 

underneath what is said to identify what is meant without being stated by 

linguistic expressions.  

Implicature or implicated meaning may appear in any conversational 

occurrence or in any SI situation. The implicated meaning recovery 

constitutes a challenge for the simultaneous interpreter in two ways. The 

first way is related to the fact that implicature is there in the spoken 

discourse; however,  to what limit is the interpreter allowed to go deep and 

make the implicit explicit? Setton (1999:10) discussed the cognitive 

pragmatic analysis of the simultaneous interpretation and stated that 

"translation aims to make the same explicatures and implicatures available 

to its addresses". Obviously, the implicature or implicated meaning 

recovery by the interpreter is necessary, even fundamental, for the 

addressee’s comprehension. Setton (1999) added that "the interpreter must 

form a representation of the speaker’s intended meaning at one remove 

from linguistic forms" (p.10). What Setton suggests here is that the 



5 
 

implicated meaning existence within the source language must be conveyed 

even though it is not explicitly stated by linguistic forms.  

The second way relates to the simultaneous interpreter's ability to 

comprehend what is implicated. Chernove (2004) stated that 

"Comprehension depends on adequate analysis of the content of the 

message, not as it is expressed explicitly, but also its concealed, implicit 

component" (p.57). Message comprehension, according to Chernove, has 

two sides, the comprehension of what is explicit and of what is implicit. 

Diriker (2004) suggests that "professional interpreters underline that SI 

implies the maximum transfer of the ideas and opinions in the original in an 

intelligible manner and underscore the importance of complete 

identification between the interpreter and the speaker "(p.42). As stated, the 

simultaneous interpreter job is to reach the maximum level of the original 

message transference in order to obtain the highest level of message 

conveyance and comprehension by receivers. 

Taking into consideration the interpreter’s cognitive ability, intuition, 

experience, background and the interpretation process limitations like time 

and speed, can the interpreter render implicated meaning adequately? And 

if not, how would that affect the intended meaning of the original text on 

one hand, and the audience comprehension on the other hand? In this 

research, the researcher will attempt to answer the previous questions by 

examining simultaneous interpretation of implicated meaning. The thesis 

aims toward examining challenges that face interpreters considering 



6 
 

implicature. The research will look into the factors that can affect 

implicature interpretation. Moreover, the research intends to examine the 

impact of misinterpreting implicature on the whole message conveyance. 

1.2 Statement of the Problem: 

 Whether written or spoken, the non-stated meanings by producers 

create a challenge in understanding the implicated meaning by receivers. 

Implicature constitutes extra burden for SI interpreter. In SI, interpreters 

are expected to convey the original message adequately; that is, interpreters 

need to include every idea whether explicated or implicated. The 

conveyance of implicatures may trouble the interpreter for reasons related 

to time constraints, cognitive abilities, linguistic abilities, lack of training 

and others. The interpretation of the original message may not succeed if 

the interpreter fails to realize the implicated meaning, and as a 

consequence, the original message’s content would be inadequately 

interpreted or even lost. SI interpreter would fail to fulfill his/her task if 

he/she does not include all of the factors that affect implicature 

interpreting. Interpreter’s realization of related factors would aid him/her in 

capturing and interpreting the implicated meaning.  

1.3 Aim of the Study:  

This thesis will examine interpreting implicated meaning in SI and 

how it is possible for an interpreter to communicate the intended meaning 

without being held responsible for what the speaker implies. The first aim 



7 
 

of the research is to identify the main challenges that face the interpreter 

during the SI process and how interpreters can overcome such challenges. 

The second aim is to identify the impact of misinterpreting implicature on 

the content of the original message in SI process. Finally, the research is 

going to examine the related factors, linguistic and extralinguistic, that may 

affect implicature interpreting and could help the interpreter in fulfilling 

his/her task of implicature interpreting, and identify the most influential 

element. 

1.4  Questions of the Research: 

1- What are the main challenges that face simultaneous interpreters 

during the interpretation process considering implicated meaning? 

What kind of skill  do interpreters need to have in order to overcome 

such challenges?   

2- What is the impact of misinterpreting implicated meaning on the 

original message content and target language audience? 

3- What are the elements of the source text that interpreters should 

include to  interpret implicature in SI? 

1.5 Significance of the Study: 

The study significance lies in the coinage of pragmatic phenomena, 

implicature, to SI. As implicature constitutes an extra challenge to the 

comprehension of a discourse, whether written or oral, it is taken to another 



8 
 

higher level of confrontation when it is related to simultaneous 

interpretation. 

The thesis relies on retrieving examples of implicature 

misinterpreting, which would be retrieved from speeches of recognized 

dignitaries. Exemplification adds more significance to the thesis which tries 

to study the practical conveyance of implicature in SI. Moreover, the 

research will look into the factors that affect implicature interpreting in 

order to include in the analytical approach. What signs more significance to 

this research is the lack of studies which concern the same matter in the 

same way. 

1.6 Methodology: 

The researcher will be able to answer all the raised questions and to 

reach the anticipated results through employing the descriptive and the 

analytical approaches. In the descriptive approach, Implicature is going to 

be examined for its categorization by scholars such as Grice (1975), Horn 

(2004) and Levinson (1983,2000) in order to follow a certain categorization 

of implicature in the analytical approach of the study. Descriptive approach 

will be adopted in the identification of the factors that affect interpreting 

implicature in SI. 

The analytical part of the research will include the analysis of 

practical examples that encounter implicature in SI. That is, the discussion 

on implicature will be supported by providing examples which are going to 



9 
 

be taken from YouTube. Examples will be retrieved from the Israeli prime 

minister Benyamin Netanyahu speech in the American Congress on May 

24, 2011 and the former American president Barak Obama final speech in 

the Congress on Jan 12, 2016, in addition to the recent American president 

Donald Trump speech for his first State of the Union address on Jan 30, 

2018. Examples will be attentively considered to identify implicature’s 

misinterpretation and its effect. Both of the source discourse and its 

interpretation are going to be scripted for later analysis when a 

misinterpretation occurs.    

1.7 Layout of the Study:  

The research is divided into six chapters which further sub-

categorization as follows: 

  Chapter One consists of six main sections that are considered as a 

preface to the whole study. The study begins by providing a brief 

background on the involved concepts. After that, the problem, aim, 

questions, significance and methodology of the study are presented. 

Chapter Two introduces the main claims of the previous writings on 

the research topic. Literature review provides a summary of other works’  

hindrances and achievements that are related to the topic of this study.  

Chapter three constitutes a theoretical background of SI and 

implicature. A background into Implicature’s background is necessary  in 

order to identify the different definitions of the pragmatic phenomena and 



10 
 

the different categorizations of implicature. Chapter three also identifies the 

challenges that interpreters face during SI. 

Chapter four aims to identify the linguistic and extralinguistic 

elements that can aid the researcher in his analytical approach of the study. 

The elements are extracted from the review of previous models of 

interpreting.  

  Chapter five deals with the practical analysis of the retrieved 

examples. In this chapter, an  analysis of the misinterpretations will be 

carried out to identify any instances of misinterpretation and their impact 

on the original message.  

Chapter six includes the conclusions and recommendations offered. 

  



11 
 

 

 

Chapter Two 

Literature Review 

2.1 The interdisciplinarity of SI    

2.2 Implicature in Translation and Interpretation 

2.3 Implicature in practice  

 

   



12 
 

Chapter Two 

Literature Review 

This section is devoted to the related studies that deal with 

implicature in SI. The section is short due to the scarcity of studies related 

to implicature in SI process.  

2.1 The Interdisciplinarity of SI: 

 In the 1980s, a new interest in SI studies began. As a field of study, 

many researchers made enormous contributions to the field of SI regarding 

theoretical and practical discussions of various aspects related to SI. SI 

study did not attract linguists and translators only, but also it became an 

interesting topic for psycholinguists and sociolinguists. Such interest 

impacts the study of SI and its relation to other fields. According to 

Garzone  and Viezzi  (2002:2): 

Since its early stages the “young” discipline of interpreting 

research (SI, my addition) has found itself, by necessity, at a 

crossroads between several different sciences ……. it had to 

borrow some of its instruments of analysis from other 

sciences mainly psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and 

translation studies. 

The overlap between SI and other fields of study affected SI studies 

where  its focus becomes centered around the mental and cognitive aspects 

of the interpretive process. Such interest has great value in the study of 



13 
 

related phenomena  to SI like the education and training of SI interpreters. 

It can be stated that the focus on the cognitive aspects of SI has a major 

role in the enrichment of the concept and content of SI. 

The focus on cognition in SI affected the example choice and 

analysis of SI process; that is, the focus was not on the input and output as 

on the way that input is processed to produce output. Notice that this 

discussion does not attempt to criticize the focus on cognition in SI, since 

SI is a cognitive process itself. According to Schwieter and Ferreira 

(2017:445) “research into cognition in interpreting set out from conference 

interpreting and, more specifically, simultaneous interpreting, because any 

type of interpreting, be it spoken or sign language, involves simultaneity of 

different cognitive process”. Yet, a criticism can be signed for the huge 

concentration over cognition on other disciplines’ expense. The cognitive 

aspect role therefore is undeniable; however, the focus of this study will be 

on the product of SI. Such focus is related to linguistics rather than 

cognition. According to Chernov (2004:72): 

inferences made by the hearer from extralinguistic sources 

(cognition, situational and pragmatic) are a powerful tool 

for comprehension. We may safely assume that in the 

absence of such sources, comprehension would always be 

incomplete, defective and deficient.  

What Chernov suggests is that SI as an interactive and 

communicative process has other sources than cognitive ones. Interpreters 



14 
 

adhere to other fields, as linguistic, to obtain an adequate comprehension of 

SI process. According to Marmaridou (2000:53), in her consideration of 

cognition, “it (cognition, my addition) sheds light on how the mind works 

and how experiences relate to our conceptual system”. Cognition is the 

centre of understanding the way our minds work; especially when it comes 

to language processing. Most of the reviewed studies take the cognition of 

the interpreter as a starting point for SI study. The importance of cognition 

study in this research lies in identifying the reason(s) that stand behind the 

misinterpretations  during SI process. Although the research focus is on the 

output of the SI process, the research does not ignore any factor that may 

aid in identifying the misinterpretations causes.  

Chernov considers pragmatics along with cognition as two 

extralinguistic sources of comprehension that help in message conveyance. 

However, pragmatic phenomena like presupposition and implicature were 

studied for the illustration of some cognitive aspects.  

Consecutive interpreting and SI share the property of oral nature. In 

her consideration of courtroom consecutive interpretation, Berk-seligson 

(1990:197) stated that “interpreting training programs should look into 

linguistics in general, and to the field of pragmatics in particular, to 

sensitize persons entering the profession as to the multiple ways in which 

they can  jury”.  

  



15 
 

2.2 Implicature in Translation and Interpretation: 

 Before I discuss implicature in translation and interpreting, I  should 

illustrate translation and interpreting differences  in order to understand the 

way each process deals with implicature. Translation origins can be traced 

to the first century BC where Cicero and Quintillian started the debate over 

sense- for- sense or word- for- word translation of Latin orations. Since 

then, translation went through a great number developments that 

contributed to translation as a field of study. Interpreting on the other hand 

is a recent discipline that we can trace back to 1920s.  

Pochhacker (2004:51) considers interpreting studies as a part of the 

wider field of translation. Such consideration by Pochhacker is supported 

by translation scholars’ in studying interpreting as a sub-field or even a 

secondary one. Pochhacker (2004:52) states that “translation scholars have 

mostly defined their object in the narrow sense, as limited to the written 

medium, and have seen a little need to fit their models and methods to 

interpreting”.  

 Translators’ tendency towards dealing with written texts was 

supported by their belief in the elusive nature of interpreting as a process; 

that is, language in written texts is fixed and more convenient to study than 

the oral discourse. The distinct nature of written texts in translation and oral 

discourse in interpreting constitutes the main challenge to deal with. 



16 
 

Pressure, limited time and lack of available resources in the 

immediate nature of interpretive situations make interpreting out of 

translation scholars’ interest until 1990s. According to Pochhacker 

(2004:52), in the early 1990s “influential approaches to (written) 

translation, including concepts like target- text function (skopos) and 

translation norms, began to be explored in the field of interpreting”. 

Although some scholars like Vermeer (1984), Holmes (1978) and Toury 

(1978) showed an interest in interpreting, the interpretive process was 

considered in the fields of psychology and sociology more than in 

translation studies (Pochhacker: 2004). 

Later, even after implicature became a more complicated 

phenomenon to resolve, it was considered mainly in written scripts. In 

other words, implicature was regarded in translation rather than 

interpreting. The point that I  want to make here is that translation and 

interpreting  have different accounts for implicature because of the 

difference in the essence of the processes. Implicature comprehension and 

delivery in translation can be grasped by resorting to other writings or a 

professional consult, but interpreters do not have such pleasure due to the 

immediacy of the oral interpretive situation.   

The conveyance of implicature in an immediate situation, without 

any supporting material and in the regular speed of talk flow, creates extra 

challenge for SI interpreters. The analytical process by the translator, in SI, 



17 
 

requires more efficiency, training, cultural and linguistic abilities due to the 

lack of supporting sources in the immediate SI of implicature. 

  The audiences of the written script are not the same of the oral 

discourse. The readers of translated work may resort to other resources or 

translations to comprehend the written text’s explicit and implicit 

meanings. However, listeners have the interpreters’ words as the only 

resource of information. In such case, the audience of the interpreter is 

restricted to the his/her immediate interpretation.  

2.3  Implicature in Practice:  

In 1975, the British philosopher Grice firstly introduced the concept 

of implicature. It was noticed that implicature was considered, in most of 

the reviewed works, according to Grice maxims. (for more details see 

section 3.3). 

The contributions of Grice to pragmatics, especially in implicature, 

are valuable. Yet, the neo-Griceans researchers, Horn (1984, 2004) and 

Levinson (1987a, 2000), have provided new categorization for implicature. 

Although Grice set the basic principles for implicature, other researchers, 

such as Green (1989), Mey (1993), Davis (1998) and Lindblom (2001), 

contributed to the pragmatic phenomena. The categorizations of 

implicature provided by neo-Griceans were not considered in practical 

studies of implicature as Grice’s categorization. 



18 
 

In 1998, Jacobsen investigated implicature in Danish courtroom. 

Although Jacobson investigated implicature in consecutive interpreting, his 

investigation is valuable due to the shared oral nature of consecutive 

interpreting and SI. The investigation looked into implicature theory and 

the strategies that interpreters applied in the courtroom. With reference to  

court room interaction, Jacobson (1998) stated that   

This perception is reflected in ethical guidelines which 

instruct court interpreters to deliver absolute verbatim 

versions of source texts. Clearly, pragmatic meaning cannot 

survive such requirement, and yet pragmatic meaning is 

central to courtroom interaction where questions and answers 

are not always entirely explicit and strait forward (as cited in 

Gerzymisch-Arbogast,  2003: 145) 

The nature of courtroom interaction requires more than pragmatic 

meaning transference. In other words, the pragmatic meaning may not 

serve the intended or implicated meaning of the conversational situation. 

Court room interpreting is critical for both the culprit and the accused, it 

can be a matter of life or death. 

Jacobson resorts to Grice’s Co-operative Principle and categorization 

of implicature. Jacobson examined Grice’s maxims and pointed out that if 

the speaker failed to observe a maxim, the audience would not take the 

non-observance of a maxim as irrelevant. Rather, the audience would look 

for another interpretation. Therefore, Jacobsen distinguished eight 



19 
 

strategies that simultaneous interpreters can adopt in implicature 

interpreting in courtroom and provided examples that can support his 

strategies. The first strategy is to interpret the semantic content only. In this 

strategy, the ambiguity of the original utterance is preserved and left for 

receiver(s) to infer implicature. In the first strategy, the responsibility of 

capturing an implicature depends on the receivers’ abilities.  

Jacobsen provided an example for the first strategy, which is to 

interpret the semantic content only, where a speaker avoids the usage of the 

weaker, less informative form, which is the full answer, and uses “yes”, 

which can provide the maximum amount of information. Jacobsen 

explained that such a case is the result of a conflict between quantity and 

quality maxims. The speaker sacrificed the quantity maxim, by saying just 

“yes”, for quality maxim by saying exactly what is in his mind, which is 

the full answer. The second strategy is to interpret part of the semantic 

content only. Implicature inferring is preserved for the receivers. Moreover, 

such a strategy is used if omitting part of the semantic content makes the 

implicature more easily available, i.e. when a speaker provides a maximum 

amount of information, instead of using a simple (yes/ no) answer. Such act 

reveals the flouting of a maxim; Jacobsen provided the next example: 

A: Did you go with C to see Schindler’s list on the night in question? 

B: I rarely miss a chance to see Liam Neeson. I think he is really 

good. 



20 
 

The interpreter: I rarely miss a chance to see Liam Neeson. 

The interpreter omitted the second part of B’s response because it 

just elaborates on the information in the first sentence. Also rendering the 

second part obscures the implicature. The third strategy is to interpret the 

semantic content and explicate the implicature. The original utterance’s 

ambiguity will be preserved, but implicature will be explained; that is, the 

interpreter will make it apparent to the receiver how the ambiguity is to be 

interpreted. For example:   

A: Did you buy the car and the motorbike? 

B: I bought the car. 

The interpreter: I bought the car, I didn’t buy the motorbike.  

While B provides less information than required, the interpreter 

explicates the implicature as an addition from his/her side. The fourth 

strategy by Jacobsen is to interpret part of the semantic meaning and 

explicate the implicature. Such strategy is used if the interpreter wants to 

explicate the implicature, but the explication makes part of the semantic 

meaning redundant. Jacobsen provided the next example to illustrate the 

strategy: 

A: Did you buy the car and the motorbike? 

B: I bought the car. That’s right. 



21 
 

The interpreter: I bought the car, I didn’t buy the motorbike. 

The interpreter leaves the second part of B's utterance  because since 

he is explicating the implicature, there is no need to mention it. The fifth 

strategy is to interpret the semantic meaning content and explicate part of 

the meaning generated by the implicature, that is, to preserve utterance’s 

ambiguity and provide clues to its interpretation. 

A: Did you and C travel back to your house together? 

B: My car wasn’t working. 

The interpreter: My car wasn’t working, so I couldn’t give him a 

ride. 

B’s response flouts the relation and quantity maxims by being 

irrelevant and provides less information than the required. The interpreter 

made the connection between the question and the answer more explicit, 

and thus the implicature becomes more easily available. The sixth strategy 

is to interpret part of the semantic content and explicate part of the 

meaning generated by the implicature. Interpreters resort to this strategy 

when omitting part of the semantic content makes the explicating of 

implicature more easily available. 

 A: Did you and C travel back to your house together? 

B: My car wasn’t working, and I had to take it in for repairs. 



22 
 

The interpreter: My car wasn’t working, so I couldn’t give him a 

ride. 

B’s response flouts the maxims of relation and quantity. The 

interpreter omitted the second part of B’s response due to the fact that it 

merely elaborates on the information in the first part. The interpreter added 

“so I couldn’t give him a ride” to make the implicit connection more 

explicit. The seventh strategy is to explicate implicature only. Such 

strategy ends the utterance ambiguity, but makes the semantic content 

redundant. For example: 

A: How do you get on at work? 

B: I’m getting a raise next month.  

The interpreter: I’m getting on very well.  

B’s response flouts the maxim of quantity by giving less information 

than required. The interpreter explicated the implicature without including 

any of the semantic content. Finally, the eighth strategy includes the 

explication of only one implicature. The strategy is used if there is more 

than one implicature communicated in the message. For example: 

A: Do you know why C put on his coat? 

B: He was going out. 

The interpreter: I don’t want to be more specific. 



23 
 

 I don’t want to answer a silly question like that. 

B’s response flouts the maxim of relation, since it fails to address 

A’s goal, and flouts the Quantity maxim, since it provides less information 

than is required. Two implicatures can be generated from B’s response: the 

first is that B prefers not to be more specific. The second is that B considers 

the question rather than silly, because its answer is obvious. The interpreter 

explicates the first implicature to be the correct interpretation.     

Jacobsen observed that interpreters have applied three strategies, the 

third, fifth and sixth. All of the used strategies involved the explication of 

an implicature or part of it. The third and fifth strategies left the semantic 

meaning for explicating all or part of the generated meaning. Jacobsen 

considered the first, third and fifth strategies as the only plausible strategies 

(as cited in Gerzymisch-Arbogast 2003:150-156). 

Although consecutive interpreting shares some properties with SI, 

the processes have some fundamental differences. Consecutive interpreting 

shares the source text’s oral nature, but unlike SI, it enjoys more available 

time boarders. It is obvious that none of the mentioned strategies is 

applicable for SI situations; time limitations and the immediate nature of SI 

give SI interpreter no chance to choose the most adequate strategy among 

the abovementioned. Simultaneous interpreters’ task would not be 

complete without regarding the characteristics of the SI process as an 

immediate oral process. The consecutive interpreting strategies that 

Jacobsen suggested cannot  be applied to a simultaneously interpreted 



24 
 

discourse due to the difference in their cores. Simultaneous interpreters 

need to choose a strategy/model that can honor the missing elements in 

consecutive interpreting. 

Abuarrah (2016) discusses the SI of implicature within political 

discourse. What made this research special is Abuarrah's consideration of 

another categorization for implicature. Abuarrah’s research is based on 

Levinson's (1995,2000) categorization of implicature; his examples were 

retrieved from political conferences and discussed from a linguistic point of 

view. He’s concluded that the misinterpretation of an implicature changes 

the implicature’s meaning, and,  as a result, part or even the whole message 

content will vary. In his regard of Levinson’s heuristics (Q, I and M), 

Abuarrah (2016:21) states that “the shifts between strong and weak forms 

ends with a completely or partially different implicature”. The 

misinterpreting that results from faulty use of strong and weak forms 

changes the original message’s implicature. In his regard of I- heuristic,  

Abuarrah  (2016:21) suggests that  examples which are less consistent with 

I-heuristic implicate different meaning from what is intended. In addition, 

Abuarrah  (2016:21) states that “the interpreter should be sensitive to any 

extra regularity in the message form as this implicates a level of 

markedness and therefore meaning unconventionality”. That is, any 

deficiency in the interpreter’s linguistic knowledge, the pragmatic 

knowledge on implicature particularly, distorts the original intended 

meaning in SI process. 



25 
 

 In the next chapter, the study is digested to provide a theoretical 

background on the origins of SI and implicature, and to identify the main 

challenges that face simultaneous interpreters.  

  



26 
 

 

 

Chapter Three 

Theoretical Background 

3.1 Introducing SI 

3.2 Simultaneous Iinterpreters’ Challenges  

3.2.1 Anticipation 

3.2.2 Time Pressure  

3.2.3 Stress  

3.3 Implicature 

3.4 Levinson’s categorization of Implicature 

3.4.1 Q-principle 

3.4.2 I-principle  

3.4.3 M- principle 

  



27 
 

Chapter Three 

Theoretical Background 

3.1 Introducing SI: 

Interpreting is a complex process that includes linguistic, social, 

cognitive and cultural aspects. The interpreter, as the only source of 

information, has  the potential to impact the audience through the decisions 

he takes (Valero-Garcés  and Martin , 2008:51).    

 The definition of interpreting suggested by Garcés  and Martin  

elucidates the complexity of interpreting. Successful interpretation depends 

on including and respecting the different aspects involved in the process. 

Interpreting is linguistic since it mainly deals with languages. In addition, 

interpreting is social since the parties involved in the interpretive process 

do not share the same social norms; they belong to different social classes. 

The cognitive aspect of interpreting lies in the process itself; that is, it is 

concerned with the way that human mind functions while interpreting, (by 

interpreters and audiences). Interpreting is a cultural bridging process; in 

other words, it constitutes a connective process by which the interpreter 

communicates the source text’s cultural norms. 

According to Payas and Garbarini (2012), although interpreters had 

great contributions in facilitating communication, they have often been 

mistrusted, dislocated and even killed because of the risks that interpreters 

may pose on the client. Interpreters may favor the enemy, as a result, the 



28 
 

interpreters’ words, intentionally or unintentionally, may become a fatal 

weapon that can seriously impact one of the battle parties. In 1914, an 

interpreter caused the death of several German officers when he 

misinterpreted the location of meeting with Portuguese officers in Angola 

(as cited in Lacorte:2014).     

 According to Lacorte (2014:315) “conference interpretation arose 

during WWI to facilitate communication with British and American 

negotiators who did not speak French”. Lacorte (2014)  is concerned with 

consecutive interpreting only. Consecutive interpreting golden era was 

between WWI and WWII. Both of SI and consecutive interpreting are 

considered together and explained in reference to each other. Yet, there is a 

great difference between the two concepts. In one hand, consecutive 

interpreting is an interpretive act where the interpreter hears the message, 

takes notes, and renders the original message in target language as he/she is 

reading the notes. On the other hand, SI interpreters hear the message and 

deliver it instantly into the target language. The training that a consecutive 

interpreter receives is focused  over note-taking. Consecutive interpreting is 

time consuming due to the fact that it requires a lot of pausing to give the 

interpreter a chance to transfer his/her notes into the target language. 

  In the 1920s SI saw light for the first time. The American 

businessman Edward Filene and the engineer A. Gordon Finlay developed 

the first so called telephonic interpreting equipment. The new equipment 

came as a replacement of consecutive interpreting in order to solve time 



29 
 

consuming problem. Herbert (1952) distinguishes three kinds of SI. The 

first kind is whispering; interpreters were hearing and whispering the 

interpreted message for delegates who brought their own interpreters. The 

second kind is telephonic interpreting where interpreters listen to the 

original message through earphones and deliver their interpretation through 

microphones. The third kind is translation at sight. In the third kind, 

interpreters were given a text and read it in another language. Sight 

translation is a part of consecutive interpreting as consecutive interpreters’ 

task was based upon reading the notes made and delivering them in target 

language (as cited in Jourdenais  and Mikklson:2015).  

In 1945, Nuremberg postwar trials constituted the breakthrough point 

for SI. The trials were held following the end of WWII in order to judge 

whoever committed war crimes. The Nuremberg trials were recognized as 

not being possible without SI; that is, the interaction within the trials, 

between the judge who uses English, French or Russian languages and the 

accused who speaks German, obligatory required SI. After the success of 

SI in Nuremberg postwar trials, Colonel Doster (1904-1971) was invited to 

test SI system in UN headquarters. The success of the experiment led to the 

adoption of SI as the regular interpretation mode at the UN (Jourdenais  and 

Mikklson: 2015:22). 

Between 1930s and 1950s, first modern interpreting schools were 

established in politically strategic cities like Moscow, Manheim, Geneva, 

Vienna, and Washington DC. Since 1950s, interpreting worldwide 



30 
 

recognition was enhanced by the emergence of a number of professional 

associations like, International Association of Conference Interpreting 

(AIIC) in 1953. (Jourdenais  and Mikklson: 2015:80).  

3.2 Simultaneous Interpreters’ Challenges:  

3.2.1 introduction  

In her illustration of SI, the psychologist Anderson (1979) stated 

that: 

Simultaneous interpretation is both cognitive and linguistic 

interest: cognitive because of the information processing 

involved in the task as well as the interpreter’s apparent ease 

in juggling several concurrent operations; and linguistic, 

because of the type of information processing he does, the 

recoding of a message heard in one language into speech in 

another language. (p.1) 

The fact that SI is both a cognitive and linguistic process is 

challenging for interpreters as the number of variables that affect the SI 

process are numerous. According to Ziobro-Strzępek (n.d:8):   

Variables that exert strong influence on the interpreting 

output are numerous. They include the source language, the 

target language, the spontaneous, semi-spontaneous, or 

prepared nature of the speech, delivery speed, the speaker’s 

intonation, the speaker’s accent, the logic of the speech, 

information density of the speech, syntactic structures in the 



31 
 

speech, including the length of sentences and the number of 

embedded structures, the quality of the sound reaching the 

interpreter, the interpreter’s knowledge of the subject matter, 

experience, training, mental and physical state, motivation, 

visibility of the speaker from the booth, the number of 

delegates who listen to the interpreting, the interpreter’s 

relations with other colleagues in the team, etc.  

One aim of this thesis is to outline the challenges that SI interpreters 

face. Therefore, I will consider three of the most critical challenges that can 

form the majority of the variables mentioned above.  

3.2.2 Anticipation: 

 According to Setton (1999:52) “anticipation has been described in 

SI researches as a strategy typically used for encountering verb-last or 

head-noun-last structure” . Authors like Lederer (1981), Gile (1995), Setton 

(1999) distinguish two kinds of anticipation: The first kind is ‘linguistic’ or 

‘syntactic’ anticipation, which is based on the prediction of source 

discourse continuations from a knowledge of either collocations and 

formulas, predictor words like function words, connectives and 

subordinators, selectional categories and case morphology (Setton:1999: 

52). The linguistic or syntactic kind is related to the interpreters’ linguistic 

abilities; in other words, it is related to the interpreters linguistic 

competence. 



32 
 

The second kind is ‘extralinguistic’ anticipation, which is based on 

external knowledge or ‘cognitive complements’. External knowledge varies 

according to the situation itself. The extralinguistic type is a very loose one. 

In other words, the concept of external knowledge includes all aspects of SI 

process which are beyond linguistics. Cognitive complements, whether 

verbal situation, contextual situation or background knowledge are related 

to the interpreters’ abilities. The interpreters’ ability to analyze and infer is 

the determiner of the interpreters’ success. (for more on cognitive 

complements, see 4.2) 

3.2.3 Time Pressure:  

Study of SI may not be done without regarding the time and 

temporal aspect of SI. Interpreters need to work on time constraints and 

speech delivery speed as losing control over time affects SI process or even 

contribute to its failure. The first difficulty, considering time, is related to 

the production rate. Gumul and Lyda (2007:2) states that “As observed by 

Kirchhoff (1976), the presentation rate, over which the interpreter has no 

control, has an evident impact on all operations of the SI process”. 

  The production of source text is related to the speaker who may not 

consider the interpreters’ ability to follow and interpret simultaneously. In 

such case, the interpreter may be forced to omit some of the source 

message in order to keep up with the rest of the message and not losing 

control over the whole discourse. 



33 
 

The second aspect of time restrictions is the SI process itself. Time 

restricts the task of interpreting as interpreters need to listen and speak at 

the same time. Although the SI process depends on the input in the first 

place, the immediacy of the process constitutes a challenge for the 

interpreters.  

Gumul and Lyda (2007:8-13) discussed coping with time 

pressure in SI. The first strategy for time coping is to keep minimum time 

lag between source message reception and target message delivery. 

Interpreters may attain better comprehension if they keep a short period of 

time between input reception and output production, but that strains short 

memory. The second way to cope with time is to adhere to the economy of 

expressions, which was suggested by Jones (1998). Moreover, Jones (1998) 

suggested avoiding repetition and choosing short forms to overcome time 

pressure. The third and final strategy is by Barik (1994) who suggested 

omission as a strategy for time pressure coping.  According to Gumul and 

Lyda (2007:2) “The most visible outcome of the increased presentation rate 

is an accompanying increase in simultaneous interpreters’ omissions 

reported by Gerver (1969) as early as in 1969”. 

3.2.4 Stress:  

SI can be marked as stress provoking due to the multi functions that 

SI interpreters need to carry in order to convey the source message. SI 

includes listening to source discourse, analyzing the message content 

(whether explicit or implied) and providing an accurate oral rendition of the 



34 
 

source message in the target language. Such complexity of  tasks requires a 

great attention from the interpreters’ side.  

Researchers like Klonowicz (1994), Cooper et al (1982), Riccardi et 

al (1998), Kurz (2003), Jimaneze and Calatayud (2001) and Kao and 

Craigle (2013) examines stress from different perspectives. Fearing public 

speaking and speaker’s speed of delivery were considered as the main 

stress generators to look into. Researchers conducted many studies in order 

to identify the sources of stress in interpreting. For example, Cooper et al 

(1982) used empirical study in which 826 surveys were distributed among 

interpreters considering stress. 

Cooper’s 14 page questionnaire considered issues like job 

satisfaction, sources of stress and mental health status. The study showed 

that 607 respondents reported high levels of work-related fatigue, 

exhaustion and mental stress, associated with poor conditions and source 

speech stress factors. However, 40-60% feeling that work-related stress 

causes a drop in performance quality was not confirmed by an assessment 

of interpreting samples for meaning correspondence and linguistic 

correctness (Pöchhacker :2016:n.p). As one of the most serious challenges, 

stress can affect the interpreting process seriously, or even make the whole 

process fail.  

In all of the three challenges, implicature interpreting in SI was not 

considered as an independent case study. The challenges considered the 

source text as a whole without regard to implicated meanings as an extra 



35 
 

challenge. The following section therefore will explain implicature and 

how it can pose an extra challenge for interpreters.    

3.3 Implicature: 

 Grice (1975) distinguished two kinds of implicature, namely, 

conventional implicature and conversational implicature. Conventional 

implicature, according to Huang (2017:54) is “a non-truth conditional 

reference which is non-deductive in any general, natural way from the 

saying of what is said, but arises solely because of the conventional 

features attached to particular lexical items and/or linguistic constructions”. 

Conventional implicatures are attached to certain lexical items or linguistic 

constructions, which signs conventional implicature to the semantic, rather 

than pragmatic, field.   

As a pragmatic phenomenon, conversational implicature captured the 

attention of many scholars like Grice (1975,1989), Horn (2004), Levinson 

(1983, 2000), Sperber and Wilson (1986) and others. In this research, focus 

will be centered on conversational implicature.. 

Grice (1975) established the cooperative principle, which states 

“Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it 

occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which 

you are engaged.” (Grice :1975:45).  By the cooperative principle, Grice 

provides a description of the way people should act in a conversation, that 



36 
 

is to act according to the cooperative principle as an ideal description of 

conversational interaction. 

According to Grice (1975:45-46), the cooperative principle stands 

upon four maxims, the Gricean maxims, which constitute the rules for 

obeying the cooperative principle. 

1- Maxims of Quantity: 

1. “Make your contribution as informative as required.” 

2. “Don’t make your contribution more informative than is required.” 

2- Maxims of Quality: Be truthful. 

1. “Don’t say what you believe to be false.” 

2. “Don’t say what you lack adequate evidence for.” 

3- Maxim of Relation: 

“Be relevant.” 

4- Maxims of Manner: “Be perspicuous.” 

1. “Avoid obscurity of expression.” 

2. “Avoid ambiguity.” 

3. “Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).” 

4. “Be orderly.”  



37 
 

Grice argues that speakers intend to be cooperative when they talk. 

In this case the addresser is observing the maxims in a fairly direct way; he 

may nevertheless rely on the addressee to make his inferences on the 

assumption that the addresser is following the maxims of conversation 

(Levinson, 1983:104). 

Observing maxims constitutes the ideal condition of a conversation. 

According to Marmaridou  (2000:229) “by observing these maxims, 

interlocutors converse in a maximally efficient, rational and cooperative 

way. They speak, and they assume their addressees to speak, sincerely, 

relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information”. when the 

parties engaged in a conversation obey the maxims, the message content 

preserves its fluency engendering a conversation that lacks implicated 

messages. 

A speaker in talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim in several 

ways. The first one is when the speaker violates a maxim; for example, a 

speaker violates Quality maxim by telling a deliberate lie. The second way 

is to opt out a maxim and as a consequence of the whole cooperative 

principle by using certain hedges like “As far as I know” to opt out Quality 

maxim. The third way is to flout a maxim, that is, the speaker intends to 

achieve a particular communicative effect by adhering to the cooperative 

principle in indirect way. 

According to   Marmaridou (2000:234) “Grice observed that 

conversational implicature arising in the observance or flouting of the 



38 
 

maxims and in terms of the CP are actually generated in a particular 

context of use”. Conversational implicature can be derived by flouting a 

maxim. Although flouting a maxim means the abandonment of the 

cooperative principle, such abandonment creates a conversational 

implicature due to the belief that there is a deeper cooperative principle at 

some deeper level. Such flouting is employed to convey an extra message 

as the producer trusts the recipient’s ability in computing the implicated 

message.   

 Grice (1975:3) defines conversational implicature as “a set of non-

logical inferences which contain conveyed messages which are meant 

without being part of what is said in the strict sense”. What Grice attempts 

to say is that there are some kind of message underlying the actual 

utterance. Grice asserted the underdeterminacy principle which assumes 

that the linguistically encoded meaning radically underdetermines the 

proposition that the speaker expresses while uttering a sentence. However, 

Grice’s definition of implicature was criticized. According to Horn (2004) 

“implicatures are distinct from the non-logical inferences the hearer draws; 

it is a category mistake to attribute implicatures either to hearers or to 

sentences” (p.3). In a contradictory manner, Grice (1989) himself, 

criticized maxims for not being coordinate: 

The maxims do not seem to be coordinate. The maxim of 

Quality, enjoining the provision of contributions which are 

genuine rather than spurious (truthful rather than 



39 
 

mendacious), does not seem to be just one among a number 

of recipes for producing contributions; it seems rather to 

spell out the difference between something’s being, and 

(strictly speaking) failing to be, any kind of contribution at 

all. False information is not an inferior kind of information; 

it just is not information (Grice:1989:371). 

 Horn (2004) suggested two principles that can include and replace all 

of the Gricean maxims. The first is Quantity principle where there are a 

strong form and a weaker form. Strong and weak forms are determined by 

the entailment principle; that is, strong form entails the weak one, as in 

“all-some”, but not the opposite. In this case, implicature is derived from 

the actual choice of forms within discourse. In other words, using a certain 

form whether strong or weak implicates a deeper meaning that the producer 

wants to convey. In addition, Hirschberg (1991) adds that any set of 

ordered entities could create a quantity implicature. Horn (2004) stated that 

“The Q principle is a lower-bounding hearer-based guarantee of the 

sufficiency of informative content (“Say as much as you can, modulo 

Quality and R”); it collects the first Quantity maxim along with the first 

two “clarity” sub maxims of manner” (p.13). 

 The second principle by Horn is the Relation principle, R-principle. 

It is an upper bounding pragmatic principle which invites a lower bounding 

conversational implicature; that is, it assumes that there is no need to make 

a stronger, more complicated implicatures if the information already 

contributed by the statement is directly represented. R-principle includes 



40 
 

the second quantity sub maxim, the relation maxim, the third and fourth 

manner sub maxims. The difference between R and Q principles is that R 

principle, in contrary to Q principle, tends to minimize the linguistic form. 

Horn (2004) defined conversational implicature as “a component of 

speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s 

utterance without being part of what is said. What a speaker intends to 

communicate is characteristically far richer than what she directly 

expresses” (p. 3).  

 Levinson (1983, 2000) took another path in discussing the utterance 

meaning. The default or presumptive meaning, which assumes preferred 

interpretations, arises from the structure of an utterance rather than its 

contextual use. Levinson (1987a,1991) criticized Horn’s distinction of 

implicature for his failure to distinguish between semantic minimization, 

which is defined as the fact that semantically general expressions are 

preferred over semantically specific ones, and expression minimization 

(minimization in form) according to which shorter expressions are 

preferred to longer ones (Levinson:1998:556).  

  In Levinson’s consideration of implicature, he criticized the Gricean 

theory of implicature. Levinson’s first criticism was for Grice’s 

consideration of generalized conversational implicatures (GCIs) and 

particularized conversational implicatures(PCIs). While Grice considered 

(GCIs) as implicatures which require no specific contextual conditions, 

(PCIs) requires such conditions. Levinson (2000:16) added the next 



41 
 

clarification of Grice’s point on (PCI) as “an implicature I from utterance U 

are particularized iff U implicates I by virtue of specific contextual 

assumptions that would not variably or even normally obtain”, and (GCI) 

as “an implicature I is generalized if U implicates I unless there are unusual 

specific contextual assumptions that defeat it”.  

 According to Carston (2004:182), Levinson distinguished between 

generalized and particularized conversational implicatures as “PCIs depend 

on some (unspecified) maxim of relevance which is responsive to particular 

contextual assumptions, while GCIs are underpinned by three 

informativeness principles (based roughly on Grice’s quantity and manner 

maxims)”. From this point, Levinson introduced his three corresponding 

heuristics, namely the Q, I, and M heuristics. According to (Levinson: 

2000: 33-38), the next three heuristics are the base for utterance 

interpretation: 

 The Q-Heuristic: what isn't said, isn't. For example, (some !not all”). 

  The I-Heuristic: what is expressed simply is stereotypically true. For 

example, (If you mow the lawn, I'll give you $5.If you don't mow the 

lawn, I won't give you $5). 

  The M-Heuristic: what's said in an abnormal way isn't normal. For 

example (The corners of Sue's lips turned slightly upward. Sue didn't 

exactly smile). 



42 
 

In this research, Levinson’s (1983, 2000) categorization of 

implicature will be considered as a reference to depent on. That is, what 

Levinson has provided by evidence, seems to be the most convincing 

discussion among other discussions raised earlier. Levinson’s heuristics are 

explained further by principles that are based on and correspond to the 

heuristics. Q- principle corresponds to Q heuristic, I- principle corresponds 

to I heuristic and M-principle corresponds to M heuristic. 

3.4 Levinson’s categorization of Implicature: 

Each of Levinson’s principles has two sides: a speaker’s maxim, 

which specifies the speaker’s role , and a  recipient’s corollary, which 

enjoins what is allowed for the addressee to infer. 

3.4.1 Q-principle: 

Q-principle by Levinson is related to Grice’s first submaxim of 

Quantity and Horn’s Q-principle. The principle stands upon the notion of 

“contrast set”, a contrast of utterances that the speaker could have made. 

Moreover, Q-principle can be applied to unordered sets like (yellow +> not 

red).  

Speaker maxim: 

•  Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your 

knowledge of the world allows, unless providing an informationally 

stronger statement would contravene the I-principle. 



43 
 

Hearer’s corollary: 

•  Assume that the speaker made the strongest statement consistent 

with their knowledge. 

 In the speaker’s maxim, the speaker is not allowed to say less than is 

required, bearing in mind I[nformativness]-principle; that is, the speaker 

should provide sufficient information, but without violating the rule of 

information minimization that I–principle assumes. Information 

minimization declares the speaker’s role in producing the minimal 

linguistic information sufficient to achieve the communicative function. Q-

principle has three types, namely: Q- scalar, Q-clausal and Q-alternate.       

3.4.1.1 Q-Scalar Implicature: 

 According to Levinson (1983:133), Q-scalar implicature “consists of 

a set of linguistic alternates, or contrastive expressions of the same 

grammatical category, which can be arranged in a linear order by degree of 

informativeness or semantic strength”. Q-scalar implicature is derived from 

Horn-scale. That is, semantically strong form entails semantically weak 

form if the strong and weak forms are equally lexicalized, at the same word 

class and from the same register and from the same semantic relation or 

semantic field.  

Considering examples like (all- some/ hot – warm/ excellent – good), 

the strong forms of (all, hot, excellent) entail the weaker forms of (some, 

warm, good). In other words, when “all the boys are playing”, then some, 



44 
 

the weaker form, of them are, but not vice versa. Yet, if “some of the kids 

are playing”, the strong form, all, will not be entailed; that is, the utterance 

implicates that +> not all of the kids are playing. Moreover, when “the food 

is hot”, the strong form “hot” entails the weaker form “warm”, but not the 

other way. 

3.4.1.2 Q-Clausal Implicature: 

Clausal implicature is derived from the usage of certain linguistic 

expressions that can be discriminated by their weakness or strength. 

According to Huang (2017:42) “Q- clausal implicatures also rest on a set of 

contrastive semantic alternates”. As Q- scalar, Q- clausal implicatures is 

established on a hierarchy of strength between semantic alternates, 

however, it is different in its constructional nature. According to 

(Levinson:2000:76) “the scalar implicatures are induced from ranked sets 

of alternates,… whereas the clausal ones derive from contrasts between one 

expression that entails its embedded sentence(s) and another one that does 

not”. Linguistic expressions like “believe- know/ or- and /possibly- 

necessarily” are instances of clausal implicature. For example:  

“believe- know”  

 Mary believes that Nigel has visited Kafka’s house on Golden Lane 

in Prague. 

+> Nigel may have visited Kafka’s house on Golden Lane in Prague, 

or may not. 



45 
 

“know” entails its constituent sentence (s), but “believe” does not.  

3.4.1.3 Q-alternate Implicature: 

In this subcategory, “quantity alternate” implicature has two 

subtypes. In the first subtype “Q- ordered alternate” the lexical expressions 

in a set are informationally ranked. For example: <succeed, try> 

In 1888, van Gogh tried to set up an artist’s studio at Arles. 

+>  In 1888, van Gogh did not succeed to set up an artist’s studio at Arles. 

The semantically stronger form “Succeed” does not entail “try”. 

“Succeed” and “try” are from the same contrast set, but the set is non-

entailing.  (Huang, 2014:53) 

 The second type is Q- unordered alternate where lexical expressions 

are of equal semantic strength. For example: 

(white, red, blue, green, yellow) 

 “The flag is blue.” 

+> the flag is not, for example,  red, green or white, or 

+> the flag is not blue and red, or 

+> the flag is only/all blue 

 (Huang,2014:53) 

  



46 
 

3.4.2 I-principle (I for Informative): 

The I-heuristic is related to Atlas & Levinson’s 1981 Principle of 

Informativeness, and is related to Grice’s second submaxim of Quantity 

and Horn’s R-principle. 

Speaker’s Maxim: The Maxim of Minimization 

 ‘Say as little as necessary’, i.e. produce the minimal linguistic 

information sufficient to achieve your communicational ends 

(bearing the Q-principle in mind). 

Recipient’s Corollary: The Enrichment Rule. 

 Amplify the informational content of the speaker’s utterance, by 

finding the most specific interpretation, up to what you judge to be 

the speaker’s M-intended point, unless the speaker has broken the 

maxim of Minimization by using a marked or prolix expression, 

specifically: 

1- Assume the richest, temporal, causal and referential connections 

between described situations or events, consistent with what is 

taken for granted. 

2- Assume the stereotypical relations obtain between referents or 

events, unless this is inconsistent with 1.  



47 
 

3- Avoid interpretations that multiply entities referred to (assume 

referential parsimony); specifically, prefer coreferential readings of 

reduced NPs (pronouns or zeros). 

4-  Assume the existence or actuality of what a sentence is about if 

that is consistent with what is taken for granted. 

 (Levinson, 2000:114-115). 

Levinson (1983) discussed the informative principle as the 

stereotypical interpretation of an implicature. I- implicature identifies the 

speaker’s role as to minimize, that is, to produce the minimal linguistic 

information that is acquired for sufficient communication. On the other 

hand, the receiver's role is in the enrichment of the content and find the 

most adequate interpretation in a stereotypical manner. The main issue in I- 

implicature is that the speaker need not say more and the receiver should be 

stereotypical in interpreting the implied meaning. According to I-principle, 

informationally weak expressions tend to be enriched informationally by 

the hearer. According to Huang (2014:58) “The implicature engendered by 

I-principle is one that accords best with the most stereotypical and 

explanatory expectation given our knowledge about the world.” For 

example:  

 “John pressed the spring and the drawer opened.” 

The utterance implicates that: 



48 
 

+> John pressed the spring and then the drawer opened 

+> John pressed the spring and thereby caused the drawer to open 

+> John pressed the spring and in order to make the drawer open 

3.4.3 M- principle: 

It is important to note that the M-principle operates in terms of 

alternates that contrast in form and not in semantic content 

(Huang:2014:62). M- implicature, is the stating of abnormal, marked 

expressions in order to indicate an abnormal, non-stereotypical situation. 

By stating such marked expressions, the receiver role emerges in 

identifying the marked expressions and identifying the marked situation. In 

other words, the usage of certain marked linguistic forms is to indicate 

some other meaning than the normal, unmarked meaning. 

Speaker’s Maxim:  

 Indicate an abnormal, non-stereotypical situation by using marked 

expressions that contrast with those you would use to describe the 

corresponding normal, stereotypical situation. 

Recipient’s Corollary: 

  What is said in an abnormal way indicates an abnormal situation, 

or marked messages indicate marked situations. 



49 
 

In his consideration of M-implicature, Huang (2017:64) mentioned 

a number of dimension of contrast that M-implicature may involve: 

This M-implicature opposition set may involve different 

dimensions of contrast in different context. Some 

dimensions are those on which the contrast is between 

prototype versus non-prototype, a ‘value-added’/ 

intensifying versus a ‘non-value-added’/ non-intensifying 

use or a literal use versus a metaphorical meaning…..other 

dimensions of contrast may involve resolving reference(as 

in the case of the use of proper names), disambiguating 

expressions (as in the case of hyponymy), and narrowing 

generalities (as in the case of pragmatic looseness versus 

strictness)  

In her consideration of Levinson’s heuristics, Birner (2012:n.p) 

stated that: 

Q- heuristic appeals to a contrast set of semantically distinct 

expressions (i.e., expressions that “say different things”), 

whereas his M – heuristic assumes a contrast set of formally 

distinct expressions that are semantically similar (i.e., they 

say nearly the same thing, but in different terms) 

The M and I principles are in opposition; while I-principle implies a 

default and stereotypical interpretation, M-principle is employed to point 

out an unusual or unexpected situation by using marked or prolix 

expressions. The hearer would be guided towards the intended 



50 
 

interpretation by using marked expressions by the speaker. Levinson 

(2000:160) provided the next example on I and M implicatures: 

 “Cortes killed Montezuma.” 

I-implicature +> Cortes directly caused the death of Montezuma, 

e.g., strangled him with his own hands. 

    “ Cortes caused the death of Montezuma.” 

       M-implicature +> Cortes indirectly caused the death of 

Montezuma, e.g., ordered him to be put to death.   

3.5 The Interaction Between Q-, I-, and M-principles: 

The reason that stands behind choosing this topic is the potential of 

conflict between the three implicatures. That is, in the case of conflict 

between the implicatures, which one should take precedence? Levinson 

(1991, 2000) provided an ordered set of precedence in order to resolve the 

potential conflict between the implicatures. Levinson’s resolution schema 

for implicature interaction suggests the precedence of Q-implicature over 

the I- and M-implicatures. For example: 

 If bill Gates gave you a car for Christmas, it may have been a real 

one.  

 The example has two possible implicatures. The first is I-implicature: 

+> the car was a toy car. 



51 
 

However, the utterance has a Q-clausal implicature, the conditional if: 

+> the car may or may not have been a real car. 

Following Levinson’s schema, the Q-implicature precedes the I-

implicature: 

Q > I  

+>possibly the car was a real car. 

Moreover, Q-implicature precedes M-implicature. For example:  

 It is not unlikely that Oxford will win the next boat race, and indeed I 

think it likely. 

  Q- implicature +> it is possible that it is likely that Oxford will win the 

next boat race. 

M-implicature +> it is less than fully likely that Oxford will win the next 

boat race. 

Q > M 

 +> it is likely that Oxford will win the next boat race. 

Following Levinson’s Schema, M-implicature precedes I-implicature. For 

example: 

 The corners of  Mary’s lips turned slightly upward. 



52 
 

M-implicature +> Mary didn’t exactly smile, she sort of smirked. 

I-implicature +> Mary smiled in the normal way  by producing a nice, 

happy expression. 

 M > I 

+> Mary didn’t exactly smile, she sort of smirked. 

 (Huang, 2017:51-53) 

  



53 
 

 

 

Chapter Four 

Elements to Consider in SI of Implicature 

4.1 Introduction  

4.2 Psycholinguistic Models of SI  

4.3 SI as a Communicative Process  

 



54 
 

Chapter Four 

Elements to Consider in SI of Implicature 

4.1 Introduction   

Under this topic, the research will try to identify the factors/elements 

which interpreters should consider in the SI process of implicature. The 

elements will assist interpreters in capturing implicated meanings 

considering the fact that implicatures are meant rather than said. Such 

elements are helpful in two ways: The first way is related to the 

understanding and capturing of implicatures. The factors constitute a 

reference for the interpreter when he/she is dealing with implicated 

meanings. The second way is related to the analysis of the retrieved 

examples. That is, identifying the related factors/elements help locate the 

source of the interpreter’s failure. The determination of related elements 

requires a review of  previous models of interpreting. Such elements will be 

discussed in light of implicature interpreting. The chosen elements will be 

regarded according to its contribution to implicatures interpreting in SI 

process. 

4.2 Psycholinguistic models for SI interpreting 

 Since the SI process is both a linguistic and a cognitive process, the 

research will consider three  psycholinguistic models to look for an 

illustration for implicatures interpreting in SI process. 



55 
 

In his consideration of psycholinguistics role in SI, Gerver 

(1975:119) stated that: 

In spite of the fact that the simultaneous interpreter’s skills 

would appear fertile ground for psychologists interested in, 

say, the study of memory, attention, bilingualism, or the 

analysis and development of skilled behavior, surprisingly 

little research has been carried out in this area by 

psychologists __ and none at all on the selection and training 

of interpreters.  

During the 1960s and 1970s, the psychologists’ interest in forming a 

model that can illustrate SI process began. The psychologists’ interest was 

in the study of interpretation as a behavior rather than studying the 

interpretive process as an outcome “output”. Psychologists’ focus was on 

the study of how interpreters’ mind works during SI process. Gerver 

(1976), Moser (1978) and Levelt (1989,1993) are examples of models that 

have attracted the attention of psychologists to SI.  

 In Gerver’s (1976) model, the concentration was on the illustration 

of how a piece of information is stored to get a continuous stream of input 

and output in SI process. The interpreter receives the source message and 

proceeds by interpreting it in accordance with what the source message 

contains, or interpreting it considering the match between what is produced 

and what exists within the source message and what memory can provide 

(Pöchhacker  and Shlesinger,2002:150). 



56 
 

 Gerver’s model provided a great insight into the SI process. Human 

mind’s memory and the way it deals with information is valuable. Yet, the 

model discusses the information that comes out of the source as oral signs 

that have a direct correspondence within the recipient’s mind. The second 

model is by Barbara Moser (1978). Moser’s model starts with acoustic 

input, oral speech, that is filtered in order to recognize syllables and words 

of the source language. Acoustic features are in the long term memory in 

addition to grammatical rules and semantic information. In other words, the 

sum of data related to both languages is stored within the long term 

memory. Long term memory occupied a great status within Moser’s model 

as the home of SI process and all the elements related to interpretive 

process. Moser’s model believes that the “verbal information triggers a 

search for a conceptual base” (as cited in Schwieter and Ferreira,2017:453). 

Conceptual base is a prelinguistic meaning structure which activates target 

language elements (semantic, syntactic and phrase processing) in the way 

of output articulation" (Pöchhacker : 2004:101).  

 The third model is the Levelt model (1989, 1993). This model is the 

most accepted model among researchers. According to Schmid , and Lowie  

(2011: 270) “the crucial characteristic of the model is its modularity, which 

is required to account for the speed with which we speak (about two to five 

words per second)”. According to Traxler  (2011:1968), Levelt (1995) 

suggested that the speaker wishes to communicate ideas, such ideas are tied 

to lexical concepts. After lexical concepts are activated, lemmas related to 



57 
 

that lexical concept are activated. Lemmas provide information about the 

morphological properties of words. Next, phonemes are activated and 

organized in a sequence.  In implicature, ideas have no lexical concepts to 

be tied to, the implicature core is the existence of ideas that are not 

expressed in a lexical manner. In such case, the activation of morphological 

and phonemes lead to the production of speech that does not include the 

deeper, unstated meaning of implicature. In his consideration of cognitive 

psychology, Levitin (2002:732) stated that: 

since the truth of conversational implicature is not required 

by the truth of what is said (what is said may be true-what is 

said may be false), the implicature is not carried by what is 

said, but only by the saying of what is said, or by ‘putting it 

that way’.  

 At this point, the previous three psycholinguistic models may, even 

partially, justify the production of normal talk. Yet, all of them could not 

justify the lack of talk which generates ideas. In other words, implicature is 

neither in the words of the speaker nor can be claimed by what is stated 

directly. In addition, the psycholinguistic models do not include the whole 

interpretive process; that is, how the interpreter’s mind works is a crucial 

issue to look into, but there are other elements that control the SI process, 

like the speaker himself, the audience, the non-linguistic factors within the 

interpreters’ minds and the socio-cultural factors (of the interpreters’ and 

audiences’). 



58 
 

So far, our aim is not satisfied; as a result, we are going to look in 

another place. Namely, the Interpretive Theory, by Danica Seleskovitch 

and Mariam Lederer , which was established in 1960s. Choi (2003) stated 

that “the interpretive theory is built upon four pillars: 1) command of native 

language, 2) command of source language, 3) command of relevant world 

and background knowledge, and 4) command of interpreting 

methodology.”  (p.2) 

The first and second pillars of the theory can be seen as the 

fundamental conditions of any linguistic communication between two 

parties who use two different languages. That is, they are general terms to 

be met even in less complicated processes as SI. The third pillar, command 

of relevant world and background knowledge is more critical for SI than 

any other communicative act. That’s to say, the oral nature of SI and the 

limited time require a precise, great base of background due to the lack of 

supportive materials during SI process. The fourth pillar, command of 

interpreting methodology, is different from other theories in a way that it 

combines meaning and cognition (Choi, 2003:2). 

What makes the interpretive theory interesting for this research is its 

study of oral interpretation. That is, in Seleskovech consideration of oral 

speech, the sound “talk” disappears, but sense remains, which is a shared 

characteristic with implicature as meaning beyond words. 

According to Interpretive theory, interpreting falls into three 

stages. The first is to understand sense. In his discussion of sense Viaggio 



59 
 

(2006:22) stated that Parisian, Paris School scholars, have never provided a 

definition for sense; however, sense was taken as the propositional content 

of the message that needed to be interpreted. 

In the first stage, sense could be taken as the content of the message. 

Understanding sense is somehow tricky; that is, the transfer of linguistic 

formulations into sense constitutes a variable according to the interpreter 

himself; two interpreters may come up with two senses. Interpreters’ 

understanding is built upon his/her linguistic competence and knowledge of 

the world. The ability to understand the intended sense of the source text 

depends on his/her cognitive and linguistic competencies. According to 

Gile (2009:252) “interpreters and translators use their knowledge of 

language as well as extralinguistic knowledge to extract he meaning or 

‘sense’ from source text”. Interpretive theory is seen as a knowledge based 

process of making sense rather than operating on and between languages. 

In other words, Interpretive theory is built upon the interpreter’s ability to 

understand the source message (Pöchhacke, 2004:68) .   

 The second stage is de-verbalization, where the original linguistic 

forms of the original discourse are forgotten, yet sense survives. The third 

and final stage is the reformulation of sense.  

To enhance sense understanding, Interpretive theory distinguishes 

four kinds of cognitive complements for sense comprehension, namely, 

verbal, situational, cognitive contexts and knowledge of the world. 

Regarding verbal context,  Lederer (1990:6) states that: 



60 
 

Speech is uttered in a continuous stream of words, each 

word contributing to the meaning of the words around it and 

being made more specific by these surrounding words. The 

meaningful interaction of words presents in the working 

memory (on average, 6 to 8 words) is the first instance of 

cognitive complements; it dispels word polysemy. 

The stream of words provides great assessment to the interpreter’s 

comprehension. The commitment to the verbal context assures tracing the 

flow of sense to be comprehended. However, the interplay between 

linguistics and cognition can be highly observed at this point; that is, the 

linguistic knowledge, whether semantic or syntactic, can affect the 

cognition of the interpreter and divert, or even do away with, the unit of 

meaning, which topples the whole process of sense comprehension.     

The second complement, situational context, examines the 

interpretive process parties, the speaker, interpreter and audience. The 

interpreter’s attitude in interpreting should be directed from the message 

producer, speaker, and point upon the audience’s comprehension which is 

highly affected by their background. The failure in meeting situational 

context necessities manipulates the correctly interpreted message. Lederer 

(1990:6) stated that “Awareness of situational context represents a further 

cognitive complement that brings forth relevant meanings, and 

consequently dispelling polysemy. Being present at the discussions and 

witnessing the proceedings enables the interpreter to gather sufficient 

knowledge to translate appropriately”. 



61 
 

The third complement, the cognitive context, which is the non-verbal 

memory of the interpreter, constitutes part of the interpreter’s mental 

ability. Lederer (1990:7) defined cognitive context as “the cumulative 

knowledge brought by the speech chain up to the point where the 

interpreter is translating” Linguistic elements are vital, but it may not be 

shaped properly if cognitive context is not coherent with it.  

The fourth complement is background knowledge, or encyclopedic 

knowledge. Lederer (1990:8) stated that “Knowledge of the world exists 

independently of acts of speech. It is the entirety of what we know, whether 

through experience or through learning” background knowledge’s 

contribution to text understanding, including implicated meanings, is 

remarkable. It can be stated that any gap in the interpreters’ background 

affects the understanding of the message, whether explicated or implicated, 

as a result, it affects implicated message conveyance. 

 In contrast to previous psycholinguistic models, Interpretive theory 

provides a clear definition of meaning unit. Meaning is not a creation of 

words or a certain length of a sentence, rather, unit of meaning is the 

product of emerging a sufficient number of words with what is stored in 

our cognition. Interpretive theory suggests that the interpreter should grasp 

each unit of meaning and render it according to his understanding. The 

theory is based on the linguistic and cognitive abilities of  interpreters. The 

early mentioned complements present a review of the cognitive abilities of 

interpreters/translators. That is, all of the four complements depend on the 



62 
 

interpreter’s/translator’s cognitive skills like his/her memory, attention 

span, creativity and logical reasoning. 

Bachman (1990) identified translational language competence as 

including two types of  abilities: organizational and pragmatic competences 

in the SL and TL. Organizational competence consists of  grammatical and 

textual competences. First of all, grammatical competence refers to 

language mastery; that is, language mastery is related to the translators’ 

knowledge of syntax, lexis and semantic rules of SL and TL. The rules 

determine the sentence formation and meaning in both SL and TL (as cited 

in Cao, 2007: 42-43). Secondly, textual competence which includes the 

knowledge of the conventions that govern text formation. According to 

Adab & Schaffiner (2000:8) translators can attain textual competence by 

being sensitized to textual features such as words, structures, patterns, text 

type and text genre. Textual domains, which are mastered by the translators 

as a result of their professional career, characterize the translators’ 

competence profiles.  Textual competence relies on the translator’s ability 

to realize the cohesive and rhetorical rules for a text. That is, translators 

ability to mark the semantic relationships such as reference, substitution, 

ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion (Cao,2007:43).  

The second type, pragmatic competence, includes the illocutionary 

competence and sociolinguistic competence. According to Baker (2016:15) 

Bachman (1990) lists four language functions as part of illocutionary 

competence:  



63 
 

1- Ideational function: the way we convey meanings and experiences. 

2- Manipulative function: using language in an instrumental way to 

achieve ends. 

3-   Heuristic function: the use of language to discover new things about 

our world and solving problems. 

4- Imaginative function: using language beyond the ‘here and now’ (e.g 

for humer). 

Illocutionary competence is related to the translators’ pragmatic 

ability to perform these function appropriately.  

Sociolinguistic competence refers to the translators’ knowledge of 

the sociolinguistic conventions to perform language functions in a given 

context. That is, translators’ sociolinguistic competence is related to the 

appropriateness of meaning and form with regard to two language and 

culture contexts (Cao,2007:43)   

   Baker (2016:15) adds that “ sociolinguistic competence is 

sensitivity to the context where language is used, ensuring that language is 

appropriate to the person or the situation”. Sensitivity may be to difference 

in local dialect, difference in register, speaking in a native-like or natural 

way, cultural variations, cultural references and figures of speech. 

Ali. et al (2012) considers the stylistic and linguistic difficulties in 

translating Quran into English. Such difficulties are not limited to Quran 

translation, rather,  they may face translators in any context:  



64 
 

1- Lexical problems: the difficulty in rendering some lexical items 

stands as the major difficulty for the translators. The absence of a 

direct corresponding equivalent compels the translators to convey the 

meaning in a communicative manner. Such conveyance would not 

communicate the full intended message as the employed item is not 

fully conveyed. Communicative manner is related to the translator’s 

linguistic abilities and his/her background. The miscommunication of 

a meaning may cause the loss of the intended impact and/or create a 

rendition that carries other indications. 

2- Syntactic problems: the variance in the syntactic systems of source 

language and target language troubles the translators. Tense is an 

obvious syntactic problem that encounter translators. That is, the 

variance of tense between English and Arabic creates a challenge for 

translators. Each tense carries certain indications that need to be 

conveyed. Yet, it is challenging for translators to convey the twelve 

tenses of English using the three tenses of Arabic.  

3- Semantic problems: the semantic features of source and target text 

pose a difficulty for translators. Social attitudes and biological sex 

are examples of the problematic semantic features. Actually, the 

semantic features may carry implicated meanings; that is, the social 

attitude towards the use of “nurse” as specified to females. Such 

consideration conforms what Levinson calls “I-implicature”, which 

assumes the stereotypical understanding by audience.  



65 
 

4- Metaphor : using words or phrases to describe something different 

from the usual use of  the same words or phrases in order to make a 

more powerful description (Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary, 

2010:965). The metaphoric usage of language was assigned to M-

implicatures. That is, the metaphor is an abnormal use of language 

that requires the interpreter to identify the abnormal situation it 

stands for. 

5- Metonymy:   according to Newmark (1988:125), metonymy occurs 

“when the name of an  object is transferred to take the place of 

something else with what is associated”. The transference occurs 

between the literal meaning and the figurative meaning of an object 

with an implicit clue to point the relation. Metonymies can be 

categorized under M-implicatures as it the use of metonymies is 

abnormal and carry implicated message.   

6- Ellipsis: as the deletion of some parts of a sentence, ellipsis sands an 

instance of  I-implicatures. That is, what the audience can understand 

stereotypically is omitted due to the conventionality of  

understanding what is omitted. 

7- Polysemy: the variety of meanings and senses of the same word 

constitutes a challenge for translators/interpreters. The decisions that 

a translator should make about the most appropriate meaning of a 

polysemy should meet the source text’s intended impact. The 

mistranslation of polysemies would divert the source text’s meaning, 



66 
 

or create other indication related to the inappropriate translation of a 

polysemy.      

If implicature is understood by the interpreter as a part of the 

comprehended sense, then implicature is transmitted into target language. 

Yet, if interpreters failed to comprehend the implicature, the message is 

counted as a transfer of linguistic forms, which Interpretive theory rejects. 

Viaggio (2006:22) comments that “the Parisians fail to make explicit that a 

translation may have a purpose different from those of the original” 

Interpretive theory, which is a creation of Parisian school, considers sense 

to be a representation of the interpreter’s knowledge of the world and 

meaning comprehension. The presentation of meaning as sense is 

interesting, yet it is not fully controlled.  

To sum up, what Interpretive theory suggests is applicable to 

implicature interpreting in SI. The concept of “sense”, as Interpretive 

theory puts, is a comprehensive concept that can include implicature. As 

Interpretive theory do away with written form in the second stage, it 

supports the comprehension of the message as an idea rather than a 

linguistic form. Implicature shares such characteristic by having no written 

form and by its need to be conveyed without a linguistic form. In such case, 

Interpretive theory is able to provide a fair reasoning for implicature 

creation as a sense to be comprehended by linguistic forms. The sense of 

linguistic forms or the meaning unit that the interpreter reaches includes 



67 
 

implicature and later to reach a full comprehension of a message. Sense 

may be constituted by implicature(s) itself in other cases.  

The suggested cognitive compliments cover great aspects and 

introduce rules for interpreters during SI process. Interpretive theory 

provides a logical discussion of how interpreting proceeds. Interpreter’s 

background effect is taken as one of the main concepts to treat in 

Interpretive theory , regarding its role in determining the sense.              

Criticism for Interpretive theory by linguists is about the way that 

Interpretive theory considers text as a second by second sequence rather 

than taking it as a whole. Such consideration of text, according to linguists, 

lead to the micro-level consideration of text, which is shown by the focus 

on cognitive task of SI process. The greatest success for Interpretive theory 

is in providing a clear explanation of meaning as “sense”, but such success 

was interrupted by the fact that there is no specific way to capture sense 

itself.  Since the interpretation of a text may differ from the original text’s 

purpose, it is necessary to determine the purpose of the original text and 

keep it in mind during the interpretation process. Such trouble should be 

handled by examining other competencies that interpreters should consider 

in order to grasp the intended meaning and communicate the intended 

impact.  

According to   Snell-Hornby , Pöchhacker and Kaindl (1994:169):  

“Danica Seleskovitch proposed her théorie du sens in explicit 



68 
 

contradistinction to theories of linguistic meaning, which then tended to 

show little concern for the actual use of language in communication”.  

4.3  SI as a Communicative Process 

Theory of Translation and Interpreting (T&I henceforth) was 

found as an interesting theory to be considered. T&I, as a theory for 

product-oriented interpreting research, was laid down by skopos theory by 

Reiss and Vermeer (1984), which rejects the psycholinguistic regarding of 

SI. Skopos (purpose/function) is a theory by functionalists; it assumes that 

the text has a function or a purpose to be conveyed by no matter ways; that 

is, skopos theory is built upon the idea that the source text has a function or 

a purpose and that the translation of a text must be a reflection of such 

function.  

 Skopos theory constitutes the main element in T&I theory. Yet, 

skopos of what? Lakoff (1987) considered the skopos to be at the level of 

the conference assignment. Vermeer (1984) takes the skopos of the target 

text. That is, the intended function is the target text’s. Most interesting 

opinion is by Pöchhacker (1995) who takes the source text skopos. Since 

our focus is on implicature which arise basically in source text, we will 

take Pöchhacker’s (1995) point of view. Interpreters’ duty is not limited to 

the delivery of words. That is, interpreters should convey the function of 

the words in order to communicate its intended impact for audience. such 

impact constitute part of the grammatical competence, pragmatic 

competence precisely.  



69 
 

One of the main concepts that linguists take as a starting point for 

their discussion is “text”. While Interpretive theory divides text by meaning 

unit and sense/s, T&I theory takes the text as one, holistic unit. Such unit is 

dealt with as a construct of a number of individual texts; in other words, it 

is a hypertext that foreground the links between the text’s constituents, as 

Pöchhacker (2004) calls. Hypertext should be dealt with as a determiner of 

T&I perspective of SI process. In other words, the hyper-text idea 

demonstrates the product oriented study of SI process. The assumption that 

full text being a hyper of texts can be useful in our discussion; that is, 

dealing with a single statement which contains implicature may not cover 

the whole process of implicature interpreting, but taking into account the 

general purpose of the whole text as part of the interpreters’ background 

and situational context of the text makes dealing with a single text possible.  

 T&I theory is developed upon the merge of functionalists’ “Skopos 

theory” (1984) and Holz-Mänttäri’s (1984) “Theory of Translatorial 

Action”. SI in Holz -Mänttäri’s (1984) comprehensive theory regard SI as a 

social interaction process, in which text has more than its linguistic parts. 

SI is treated as a communicative process which has much more than the 

linguistic forms conveyance.  

 Asserting Holz -Mänttäri’s thoughts of SI as a social interaction 

process, Pöchhacker (1995:34) stated that: 

The purpose to be fulfilled by translation and interpreting is 

largely constrained by the target-culture recipients. In 



70 
 

essence, the theory holds that the target text must first and 

foremost conform to the standard of intratextual coherence, 

i.e. it must “make sense” within its communicative situation 

and culture. Only in the second place must there be 

intertextual coherence, i.e. some relation of fidelity or loyalty 

(Nord 1991a) to the source text. In this functionalist 

conception the standard by which professional T&I is to be 

judged is not the degree of equivalence with the original but 

the extent to which the target text functions as intended 

within its socio-cultural context. 

 The socio-cultural aspect constitutes one of the main elements in SI 

process, it should be met as a criterion for the process success. In addition, 

the intratextual coherence importance should be taken as a primary 

standard to be satisfied. Applying such theory on implicature interpreting in 

SI, implicature is counted as one of elements to meet the intra and inter 

textual coherence. However, what makes the nature of such theory 

interesting is its justification of the process beyond the study of mind; it 

goes beyond and discusses the process in a socio-cultural view, which can 

constitute a reference for interpreters to meet during SI when it comes to 

implicature interpretation. SI process, according to Pöchhacker (1995:34), 

is defined as “a process of cultural transfer according to a set of 

hierarchica